Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:48:45.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The reaction of some variants of Ornithodoros moubata Murray (Argasidae, Ixodoidea) to desiccation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

G. A. Walton
G. A. Walton
Affiliation:
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Ten strains of Ornithodoros moubata not fed as adults and never mated were exposed to dry air at 32·2° C. and the effect recorded by measuring the loss of weight and survival rates.

2. Two rates of water-loss were found and O. moubata may be divided into three groups on physiological grounds. Strains found in native huts in South Africa differ from all other tested strains by losing water in dry air at 0·16 mg. per day. All other tested strains lost water at 0·32 mg. (range 0·29–0·4 mg.) per day. The wild strains of the East African warthog and porcupine burrows are distinguished from the East African domestic strains by their ability to withstand prolonged starvation.

3. The initial mean weight of a strain in any of the groups has a considerable effect upon survival in dry air, the percentage survival (in 100 days tested) being directly proportional to the original weight of the ticks. Size of individuals could alone lead to ultimate survival differences of two months in different strains of the same form.

Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 50 , Issue 1-2 , May 1960 , pp. 81 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bedford, G. A. H. (1934). South African ticks. Part 1. Ondersterpoort J. vet. Sci. 2, 49–99.Google Scholar
Browning, T. O. (1954 a). On the structure of the spiracle of the tick Ornithodoros moubata Murray. Parasitology, 44, 310–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browning, T. O. (1954 b). Water balance in the tick Ornithodoros moubata Murray, with particular reference to the influence of carbon dioxide on the uptake and loss of water. J. Exp. Biol. 31, 331–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geigy, R. & Mooser, H. (1955). Studies on the epidemiology of African relapsing fever in Tanganyika. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 58, 199–201.Google ScholarPubMed
Heisch, R. B. & Grainger, W. E. (1950). On the occurrence of Ornithodoros moubata Murray in burrows. Ann. Trop. Med. Parasit. 44, 153–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lees, A. D. (1946). The water balance in Ixodes ricinus L. and certain other species of ticks. Parasitology, 37, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lees, A. D. (1947). Transpiration and the structure of the epicuticle in ticks. J. Exp. Biol. 23, 379–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lees, A. D. (1948). Passive and active water exchange through the cuticle of ticks. Disc. Faraday Soc. no. 3, 187–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, G. A. (1950). Relapsing fever in the Meru District of Kenya. E. Afr. Med. J. 27, 94–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Walton, G. A. (1953). Ornithodoros moubata in water-hog and porcupine burrows in Tanganyika Territory. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 47, 410–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, G. A. (1955). Relapsing fever in the Digo District of Kenya Colony. E. Afr. Med. J. 32, 377–93.Google ScholarPubMed
Walton, G. A. (1957). Observations on biological variations in Ornithodoros moubata (Murr.) (Argasidae) in East Africa. Bull. Ent. Res. 48, 669–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, G. A. (1958 a). Studies on Ornithodoros moubata Murray (Argasidae) in East Africa. Pt. I. E. Afr. Med. J. 35, 57–84.Google Scholar
Walton, G. A. (1958 b). Studies on Ornithodoros moubata Murray (Argasidae) in East Africa. Pt. II. E. Afr. Med. J. 35, 107–36.Google Scholar
Walton, G. A. (1959). A biological variant of Ornithodoros moubata Murray (Ixodoidea: Argasidae) from South Africa. Proc. R. Ent. Soc. Lond. A, 34, 63–72.Google Scholar